Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai Politics Talk Philosophy and Religion Forums

Just being lazy and perhaps I know the answers but I have a question.

One reads about the "arab world" and the "arabic" language, etc. However when someone says that a person is an "Arab" is the person from a particular country, speak the language, or. etc.

For example, once someone mentioned that a certain Lebanese person was an "Arab" but that person was "offended" and promptly corrected the other person by saying that he was "Phoenecian". Is a person from Iran and "arab" or "persian". How about,

1. Palestine
2. Lebanon
3. Iraq
4. Iran
5. Egypt
6. Morrocco

Is it the language, the origins, etc. (I mean in "real" terms not "text book").

Is it the same as someone being "caucasian" but speaking different languages. Or someone being "Hispanic" speaking spanish but from different countries (Latin America), etc.

well throughout history, people kind got mixed up with the arabs and other nations, you cant really tell now

but your right about the lebanese as "Phoenecian", well most of them. The same with the iranians, small portion have arabs decendents and most of them are persians.

Bleakus is right about Arabs mixing over many generations.

Basically, nowadays an Arab is a person who calls themselves an Arab (serious).

Arabs are a distinct set of people though - all descendants of Ishmael, the first born of Abraham are Arabs. The descendants of Isaac (his half brother) are the Jewish tribes.

There are genetic markers that can distinguish Arabs and Jewish people and show they are related (markers that are unique to Arabs and Jewish people).

Arabs and Jewish tribes grouped themselves into tribes based on who they were descended from - and keep records of lineage back to Abraham. Thus Arab tribes know they are Arabs because they have the lineage.

Where things get complicated is after the spread of Islam and then the spread of Arabic as the ligua franca (commonly spoken language) - over time people started identifying themselves as Muslims as opposed to their tribes and eventually just called themselves 'Arabs' when they were not strictly of Arab descent (this is common amongst North Africans).

It really comes down to how people look at themselves and categorise themselves.

In Lebanon (formerly the region was known as the Levant) you have a mixture of people - Arabs are there, but so are descendants of Franks (from the first crusade - who by the time of the 3rd crusades were indistinguishable in manner, speech etc from Arabs, but had fair skin, blue eyes etc), Phonecians etc.

Palestine and Iraq are mostly Arab, as is Morocco and Egypt (in that they call themselves Arab).

Iranians are a different race - the 'Persians'.

Note that in the region you also have other ethnic groups such as the Kurds and Turks and various subgroups (Armenians etc).

Cheers,
Shafique

so basically, arabs and jews are cousins

yet we are the most 2 nations that cant live together in the same place

Bleakus wrote:so basically, arabs and jews are cousins

yet we are the most 2 nations that cant live together in the same place

Bleakus - you are forgetting your history.

Arabs and Jews have lived peaceably in the same lands for many centuries. For the Jews, the period they call their 'Golden Period' was when the Islamic Empire was at it's height and Jews had full freedom of religion and held high positions of power in the various courts of the empire.

When Jews were being persecuted at the end of the 19th century and beginning of the 20th century in Europe, many hundreds of thousands of Jews were welcomed in the Arab lands and settled peaceably amongst their cousins. In all this time, there was no call for hatred of Jews based on religious teachings - on the contrary, Jews were seen as 'People of the Book'.

It is only since the creation of Israel and illegal occupation of land in ensuing wars that has created the situation which we are in. It is not a religious conflict - but one against a people dispossesssed and those who have done the dispossessing.

Cheers,
Shafique

yeah your right, my bad

Shafique, remember the controversy over the genetic testing of Jews and Palestinians several years ago?

These are very old articles, but the info/conclusions is what's important:

"Jews and Arabs are really all children of Abraham and all have preserved their Middle Eastern genetic roots over 4,000 years."
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 003653.htm


"In common with earlier studies, the team found no data to support the idea that Jewish people were genetically distinct from other people in the region. In doing so, the team's research challenges claims that Jews are a special, chosen people and that Judaism can only be inherited."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/genes/article ... 06,00.html

Bleakus - no probs, you were summing up the situation today.

It's worth re-reading what was said at the UN debate before the creation of Israel:

http://www.dubaiforums.com/viewtopic.php?t=9016

Freza - you've changed! (going by your photo)

cheers,
Shafique

Shafique,
<---Don't I look cute?

My grandmother actually says that I look cuter when I don't talk...I think I will consider her advise.

[quote="Bleakus"]so basically, arabs and jews are cousins

not correct- they are now your Masters!

shafique wrote:Arabs and Jews have lived peaceably in the same lands for many centuries.

Over the centuries there have been sporadic purges, pogroms and forced conversions to Islam as well as periods of peaceful co-existence.



When Jews were perceived as having achieved too comfortable a position in Islamic society, anti-Semitism would surface, often with devastating results: On December 30, 1066, Joseph HaNagid, the Jewish vizier of Granada, Spain, was crucified by an Arab mob that proceeded to raze the Jewish quarter of the city and slaughter its 5,000 inhabitants. The riot was incited by Muslim preachers who had angrily objected to what they saw as inordinate Jewish political power.

Similarly, in 1465, Arab mobs in Fez slaughtered thousands of Jews, leaving only 11 alive, after a Jewish deputy vizier treated a Muslim woman in "an offensive manner." The killings touched off a wave of similar massacres throughout Morocco.(6)

Other mass murders of Jews in Arab lands occurred in Morocco in the 8th century, where whole communities were wiped out by Muslim ruler Idris I; North Africa in the 12th century, where the Almohads either forcibly converted or decimated several communities; Libya in 1785, where Ali Burzi Pasha murdered hundreds of Jews; Algiers, where Jews were massacred in 1805, 1815 and 1830 and Marrakesh, Morocco, where more than 300 hundred Jews were murdered between 1864 and 1880.(7)

Decrees ordering the destruction of synagogues were enacted in Egypt and Syria (1014, 1293-4, 1301-2), Iraq (854-859, 1344) and Yemen (1676). Despite the Koran's prohibition, Jews were forced to convert to Islam or face death in Yemen (1165 and 1678), Morocco (1275, 1465 and 1790-92) and Baghdad (1333 and 1344).(8)


The situation of Jews in Arab lands reached a low point in the 19th century. Jews in most of North Africa (including Algeria, Tunisia, Egypt, Libya and Morocco) were forced to live in ghettos. In Morocco, which contained the largest Jewish community in the Islamic Diaspora, Jews were made to walk barefoot or wear shoes of straw when outside the ghetto. Even Muslim children participated in the degradation of Jews, by throwing stones at them or harassing them in other ways. The frequency of anti-Jewish violence increased, and many Jews were executed on charges of apostasy. Ritual murder accusations against the Jews became commonplace in the Ottoman Empire.(10)

More than a thousand Jews were killed in anti-Jewish rioting during the 1940's in Iraq, Libya, Egypt, Syria and Yemen.(13) This helped trigger the mass exodus of Jews from Arab countries.

1941, the Mufti-inspired, pro-Nazi coup of Rashid Ali sparked rioting and a pogrom in Baghdad. Armed Iraqi mobs, with the complicity of the police and the army, murdered 180 Jews and wounded almost 1,000.


http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jso ... lands_(gen).html

--emphasis added

***

The rise of the Ottoman Empire in the late 13th century made Islam the dominant religion of the area.

Do you think the Jews and the Christians just "kept their mouths shut"?

Prior to Sultan Suleiman in around 1520, life for the Jews was pretty much shit.

I will also remind you that Palestine was under complete Arab rule from around 636 and lasted until the early 12th century.

During this period Muslim and Jewish "peace" was nothing more than a pipedream. As a matter of fact, Jewish and Muslim fighting was probably at it's worst during this period; especially considering that the Muslims completely obliterated of Judeas most sacred temples in order to erect the "Dome of the Rock".

end of the 19th century and beginning of the 20th century in Europe, many hundreds of thousands of Jews were welcomed in the Arab lands

source?

In all this time, there was no call for hatred of Jews based on religious teachings

Would you like to buy a bridge in Brooklyn?

Thanks Valkyrie- I think I addressed these quotes the first time you quoted them

BTW - how much is Brooklyn bridge going for ?

Cheers,
Shafique

Actually you didn't.

http://www.dubaiforums.com/viewtopic.ph ... light=iran

My bad. I remembered your quote and thought I had replied.

Anyway, in short:

It's basically a true statement and then a list of the 'sporadic' incidents. The 'periods of peaceful coexistence' were the norm. This is attested to by the so-called 'Golden Age' of Jewish history:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_age_of_Jewish_culture_in_Spain

(See also the links at the bottom of the Wiki page)

This is in contrast with the institutionalised persecution of Jews in Europe - dating back to the time of the first Crusades when pogroms were carried out as acts of penitence before setting out Eastwards. Whole villages were wiped out in these pogroms.

Cheers,
Shafique

Without getting technical about the Arab race or the origins the Arab countries as defined by the Arab league are the following:

Algeria
Bahrain
Comoros
Djibouti
Egypt
Iraq
Jordan
Kuwait
Lebanon
Libya
Mauritania
Morocco
Oman
Palestine
Qatar
Saudi Arabia
Somalia
Sudan
Syria
Tunisia
United Arab Emirates
Yemen

1= anyone who eats "Shawarma and kebab " and subscribe to this definition:

"Only 4 things are infinite, the girls , human stupidity, Oil and cars"

2= anyone who wear whit coffin sorta dress :=) and tight their head wid a rope .

shafique wrote:end of the 19th century and beginning of the 20th century in Europe, many hundreds of thousands of Jews were welcomed in the Arab lands

source?

Valkyrie - read the post on the UN Debate of 1948 on the creation of Israel - the number cited there to the council is 300,000. The speaker was speaking with authority and was on a number of committees looking into the Palestine issue

I've also read this in a number of different books on the history of the region - from Bernard Lewis to Karen Williams.

On wiki it talks about mass migration from 1881 onwards and has the number of Jews in Palestine at 600,000 by the end of the WWII (rising from 11% of population in 1920 to 30% in 1940 - which ties in with the c300,000 figure) :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel#Zionism_and_immigration

The figures of numbers of different religious groups in Palestine in 1948 is a matter of public record as well (and is in the speech I referenced above).

Cheers,
Shafique

Here is the relevant part of the speech - my mistake it was 400,000 since WW1 with 300,000 of these coming after WWII:

Much emphasis has also been placed on the humanitarian aspect of this question, an aspect which is not denied. But from the humanitarian point of view, it is not only a question of Jewish refugees and displaced persons. Any person who is persecuted or discriminated against or unjustly or unfairly used has the right to appropriate redress. That is not denied.

What has Palestine done? What is its contribution toward the solution of the humanitarian question as it affects Jewish refugees and displaced persons? Since the end of the First World War, Palestine has taken over four hundred thousand Jewish immigrants. Since the start of the Jewish persecution in nazi Germany, Palestine has taken almost three hundred thousand Jewish refugees. This does not include illegal immigrants who could not be counted.
One has observed that those who talk of humanitarian principles, and can afford to do most, have done the least at their own expense to alleviate this problem. But they are ready— indeed, they are anxious—to be most generous at the expense of the Arab.

There have been few periods in history when members of the Jewish race have not been persecuted in one part or another of Europe. When English kings and barons indulged in the pastime of extracting the teeth of Jewish merchants and bankers as a gentle means of persuading them to cooperate in bolstering their feudal economy a sort of medieval one-way lead-lease—Arab Spain provided a shelter, a refuge and a haven for the Jews.

Today it is said: only the poor persecuted European Jew is without a home. True. And it is further said: why, then, let Arab Palestine provide him, as Arab Spain did, not only with a shelter, a refuge, but also with a State so that he shall rule over the Arab. How generous! How humanitarian!

The United Nations special Committee on Palestine, as we know, in recommendation VI1, one of the unanimous recommendations, urged that the General Assembly take up this question of refugees and displaced persons immediately, apart from the problem of Palestine, in order to afford relief to the persecuted Jew so that there should be an alleviation of this humanitarian problem and an alleviation of the Palestinian problem.

What has this great and august body done in that respect? Sub-Committee 2 made a recommendation and drew up a draft resolution on that basis (resolution II, document A/AC.14/ 32). First, let those Jewish refugees and displaced persons who can be repatriated to their own countries be repatriated; secondly, those who cannot be repatriated should be allotted to Member States in accordance with then-capacity to receive such refugees; and, thirdly, a committee should be set up to determine quotas for that purpose.

The resolution is put forward for consideration. Shall they be repatriated to their own countries? Australia says no; Canada says no; the United States says no. This was very encouraging from one point of view. Let these people, after their terrible experiences, even if they are willing to go back, not be asked to go back to their own countries. In this way, one would be sure that the second proposal would be adopted and that we should all give shelter to these people. Shall they be distributed among the Member States according to the capacity of the latter to receive them? Australia, an over-populated small country with congested areas, says no, no, no; Canada, equally congested and over-populated, says no; the United States, a great humanitarian country, a small area, with small resources, says no. That is their contribution to the humanitarian principle. But they state: let them go into Palestine, where there are vast areas, a large economy and no trouble; they can easily be taken in there.

From:
HUNDRED AND TWENTY-SIXTH PLENARY MEETING
Held in the General Assembly Hall at Flushing
Meadow, New York, on Friday, 28 November
1947, at 11 a.m.

Cheers,
Shafique

Yes shafique, I was aware of the Zionist immigrants into Palestine. I disagreed with your usage of lands, implying that Jews moved into areas beyond Palestine.

Valkyrie - 'Arab lands' meant just that, not multiple Arab countries.

The big point, as highlighted in the speech, was that these immigrants were absorbed without any significant disturbance - only one or two clashes with casualties of a few hundred in total over the period (imagine an influx of 300,000 Muslims into a European country today!).

The immigrants lived amongst the Arab existing inhabitants and there was not a hatred for the Jews by Arabs in the lands, nor in neighbouring countries. That changed with the creation of Israel and the disenfrachisement of the Palestinian Arabs.

Cheers,
Shafique

By strange coincidence, an item on BBC news today talks about an Arab in Tunisia being considered for a 'Righteous Gentile' award by Israel for helping Jews when the country was under Nazi rule. Also a reference at the end of the King of Morocco also helping Jews during the period.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6318201.stm


(Just more information showing that the current hatred of Israel and her citizens is down to territorial transgressions rather than religious hatred)

Cheers,
Shafique

only one or two clashes

False. Here are the facts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaffa_riots
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1929_Hebron_massacre
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1929_Safed_massacre
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1938_Tiberias_massacre
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1929_Palestine_riots

(imagine an influx of 300,000 Muslims into a European country today!).

I believe that happened in France in the 60's and Britain in the 80' and 90's.

and in Britain's case, it happened without hundreds of casualties from clashes between the native inhabitants and immigrants.

The 'periods of peaceful coexistence' were the norm. This is attested to by the so-called 'Golden Age' of Jewish history:

That's a sweeping generalization. The Golden age of Jewish history occurred in Spain and should not be considered the norm throughout the Middle East.

I'll make a similar generalization:

It is the norm to hang homosexuals in Muslim lands as attested to by the policies of Saudi Arabia, Iran, Sudan, Mauritania, Afghanistan, Somalia and Yemen.


And this is from my link on the first page:

While Jewish communities in Arab and Islamic countries fared better overall than those in Christian lands in Europe, Jews were no strangers to persecution and humiliation among the Arabs and Muslim. As Princeton University historian Bernard Lewis has written: "The Golden Age of equal rights was a myth, and belief in it was a result, more than a cause, of Jewish sympathy for Islam."(2)

Dhimmis were excluded from public office and armed service, and were forbidden to bear arms. They were not allowed to ride horses or camels, to build synagogues or churches taller than mosques, to construct houses higher than those of Muslims or to drink wine in public. They were not allowed to pray or mourn in loud voices-as that might offend the Muslims. The dhimmi had to show public deference toward Muslims-always yielding them the center of the road. The dhimmi was not allowed to give evidence in court against a Muslim, and his oath was unacceptable in an Islamic court. To defend himself, the dhimmi would have to purchase Muslim witnesses at great expense. This left the dhimmi with little legal recourse when harmed by a Muslim.(4)

Dhimmis were also forced to wear distinctive clothing. In the ninth century, for example, Baghdad's Caliph al-Mutawakkil designated a yellow badge for Jews, setting a precedent that would be followed centuries later in Nazi Germany.(5)

I've read quite a lot of Bernard Lewis - he has written a number of books on the history of the middle east.

However, he is not an unbiased writer and is Islamophobic - but in an quasi-intellectual way. Karen Williams is a more balanced contemporary historian (she is not a Muslim, but a former nun) and has written books covering the same topics as Lewis - and it is only when you read these accounts that you realise how biased Lewis is.

The last book I read of Lewis (although I still have another of his books on the shelf waiting to be read) was "The Crisis of Islam: Holy War and Unholy Terror" - which was an essay that was expanded to a short book. I recommend it as a good easy read and a prime example how events can be distorted by selectively presenting 'facts'.

The quote you give above is another example - read it carefully:
it starts by acknowledging that Jews did fare better, then it says that they were however treated differently and humiliated. But look at the examples carefully - one is that they were forbidden military service or to bear arms. This is one way of looking at - the other way is the fact that Muslims were duty bound to fight when required and defend the nation, but non-Muslims were not so required. Non-Muslims were actually under the protection of the muslims and were not required to defend the nation (i.e. they were exempt from national service, whilst muslims were not).

Also note that the restrictions on Synagogues and Churches were only that they do not exceed the grandeur of mosques - I call this city planning, and an understandable restriction. Implicit in this is that they allowed freedom of worship!

And the one Caliph who required Jews to wear yellow badges does not equate the Islamic rule with Nazism!


The Golden Age of Jews was not a myth invented by Muslims, but a name given by Jews to the period in question. Jews were protected under Muslim rule and the incidents cited do not change the facts that Jews were not persecuted or subject to anti-semitism as found in Europe.

I could reel off a number of incidents in the UK and Europe where Pakistani immigrants were targeted and attacked in the 60s and 70s. Ditto for West Indians. Would it, however, be wrong to say that Pakistanis and West Indians have lived peacefully and coexisted well with Europeans since the 60's?

Anyway - I've read through the links and I am still happy to believe all the historical accounts that show that Jews have faired much better under Muslim rule than under European rule. There has not been the anti-semitism found in Europe in Arab lands (eg. Forced conversions, penitent pogroms, extracting of teeth etc ).


Cheers,
Shafique

oh - and another point... note that Lewis says
"The Golden Age of equal rights was a myth, "

The period of the Golden Age was not one that Jews celebrated because they had the same rights as Muslims - as in my previous post it is clear that they had fewer obligations than Muslims when it came to military service (and they also had fewer obligations to taxation - they paid the non-muslim tax of Jiziya whilst Muslims were obliged to pay general taxation AND zakaat - a capital tax).

Therefore Lewis is arguing against a concept that no scholar (Jew or Muslim) has espoused - 'equal rights'. The rights weren't equal - but what made the age 'Golden' for the Jews was the total freedom of worship and full participation in general society - scholarship was encouraged and many Jews found themselves in high positions of power in government, education and the sciences.

See how subtle Lewis can be with his anti-Islam stance

Cheers,
Shafique

Wiki also has an account of the Jewish immigration to Palestine:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaliyah

Notably the tensions between Arabs and Jewish immigrants only started to happen in the 20s (and I still maintain this was not widespread - from reading through the accounts of the various clashes and killings - it was factional fighting that left both Arab and Jews dead mostly, with some horrible massacres in there).

Cheers,
Shafique

Anyway - I've read through the links and I am still happy to believe all the historical accounts that show that Jews have faired much better under Muslim rule than under European rule.

No one in this thread claimed otherwise.

I could reel off a number of incidents in the UK

The incidents that I posted were large scale attacks against immigrants in Palestine. Unfortunately there were smaller clashes that occurred, like this:

<<<New bloody riots broke out in Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem on November 2, 1921, when five Jewish residents and three of their Arab attackers were killed.>>>

The Jaffa riots took place between May 1-May 7, and are not a part of this riot.

Link

There has not been the anti-semitism found in Europe in Arab lands

I'm not quite sure why you keep mentioning Europe in a discussion about the treatment of Jews in the Middle East, but that doesn't disprove Jews weren't attacked and discriminated against in Muslim lands.

Forced conversions, penitent pogroms

See first page, and yes Shafique the killing of Jews in Europe was greater than the Middle East, but that doesn't mitigate those massacres.

The Golden Age of Jews was not a myth invented by Muslims

That's a straw man argument. My link never asserted that:

The Golden Age of equal rights was a myth

Outside of the Iberian peninsula I don't believe that Jews received equal treatment with their Muslim counterparts.

And the one Caliph who required Jews to wear yellow badges does not equate the Islamic rule with Nazism!

Strawman.

setting a precedent that would be followed centuries later in Nazi Germany.

[/quote]I've read quite a lot of Bernard Lewis[/quote]

He's still a leading scholar on Middle Eastern history and is fluent in Arabic, Persian, Urdu and Hebrew. Unfortunately Karen Hughes is (I believe) only fluent in Arabic.

then it says that they were however treated differently and humiliated. But look at the examples carefully

Ok, my bad. I should have only quoted the following:

Dhimmis were excluded from public office ... The dhimmi was not allowed to give evidence in court against a Muslim, and his oath was unacceptable in an Islamic court. To defend himself, the dhimmi would have to purchase Muslim witnesses at great expense. This left the dhimmi with little legal recourse when harmed by a Muslim.(4)

and the humiliation:

he dhimmi had to show public deference toward Muslims-always yielding them the center of the road.

bear arms

Those arms would have come in handy against the periodic massacres, no?

[/quote]do not change the facts that Jews were not persecuted or subject to anti-semitism as found in Europe.[/quote]

Two wrongs don't make a right. Yes Jews in Europe were persecuted in far greater numbers (zionism was born in Europe as a result of rampant anti semitism...) but what does Europe have anything to do with a historical discussion of Jews in Muslim lands?

Jews have faired much better under Muslim rule than under European rule.

Obviously.

***

This thread should probably be split.

Valkyrie - ok, I think we can agree on the following:

- there were clashes between Arabs and Jews prior to the establishment of Israel.

- Jews weren't uniformly and universally well treated under the many centuries of Islamic rule

- Bernard Lewis knows more languages than Karen Williams [Edit - I mean Karen Armstrong - not Williams, sorry - must check before typing!!] (although I haven't looked into this and I'm sure you mean her and not 'Karen Hughes')

- What you quote Lewis saying is accurate (my point is that he makes the facts in a way that one must read carefully to see what he is actually saying - and his greatest sin is one of ommission - he quotes facts and does not give the full context and is thus misleading. I noted this when I read the same events described by Karen Williams and found that Lewis hadn't given the whole picture - but what he had said was true, it was what he did not say that was the issue. That's why I now see his writings as subtely Islamophobic - but the last book I read is more openly so.)

I've learnt more about the riots in the early 20th century as a result of this thread - and for that I thank you.

Cheers,
Shafique